Since the turn of the nineteenth century, dangerous offender provisions have
been enacted in many nations around the world, particularly in North America
and Europe. These laws exist because some offenders are considered to be so
dangerous that punishment proportionate to their offences would be inadequate
to prevent them from committing harmful acts in the future. Indeed, it is
incapacitation, not punishment, that is the primary goal of dangerous offender
laws. Two types of incapacitative measures are used to deal with dangerous
offenders: preventive or indeterminate custodial sentences and community
notification. A preventive custodial sentence is similar to an indeterminate
one in that both entail the imposition of custody for a period longer than can
be justified by the criminal act and the offender's record. Additional time is
incorporated into these dispositions as the offender is seen to pose a
significant threat to the community. A preventive sentence is different from an
indeterminate sentence because it is fixed; a judge is required to indicate the
length of time an offender will serve in custody. Community notification
provisions serve to incapacitate the offender within the community by making
his presence known to people within a certain area who will, theoretically,
protect themselves and their loved ones from victimization.

This paper will survey laws from several jurisdictions around the world
that provide for lengthy custodial dispositions or for community notification
once a dangerous person is released from prison. We will focus on legislation
enacted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands,
and Canada. The evolution of dangerous offender provisions within Canadian
criminal law will be examined and the current protocols for dealing with
dangerous and long-term offenders will be evaluated. It is hoped that a
consideration of various dangerous offender protocols in other nations will
allow Canadian law makers to improve upon the current legislation and create a
better balance between the protection of society and the constitutional rights
of the offender.

The classification of an offender as dangerous hinges on how dangerousness
is defined. In the criminal justice context, Petrunik gives a broad yet
revealing definition: "...the concept of dangerousness refers to a state
of being of individuals which predisposes them to engage in harmful acts"
(1994, p. 4). The definition is revealing for several reasons. First, it notes
that dangerousness is a phenomenon that exists within individuals. The criminal
justice system presupposes that only solitary persons act dangerously;
government entities and corporations cannot. Second, the definition refers to a
state of being, suggesting that there is something within certain people that
is the source of their dangerous conduct. Danger is conceptualized as harm
likely to be caused, displaying the orientation of dangerousness to future
conduct. Finally, the last part of the definition pinpoints the fact that the
danger manifests itself in harmful acts.